FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : SEA FISHERIES PROTECTION AUTHORITY DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.1. Interpretation Of Lateral Transfer Agreement; 2. Recruitment Of Non-Roster S.F.P.O. and S.P.O's; 3. Implementation Of Change; 4. General I.R. Relationship The four matters referred to the Court were described by the parties as follows: •Interpretation of Lateral Transfer Agreement •Recruitment of non-Roster SFPO’s and SPO’s •Implementation of change •General IR relationship. It was clarified to the Court at its hearing that an earlier arrangement whereby ‘dual roles’ in Head Office or other office locations was no longer in operation. The Court was advised that no matter related to the elimination of ‘dual role’ positions was before the Court. The Court notes that the matters before it have been the subject of significant contention between the parties and notes the employer’s submission that recruitment plans have been delayed as a result. The Court acknowledges the very significant attempts made jointly by the parties to resolve their trade dispute as it involves the four issues before the Court and notes in particular the recognition by the parties that a conclusion to the dispute is now in the interest of both sides. That recognition has resulted in the referral to the Court under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1969. Interpretation of Lateral Transfer Agreement The parties have outlined to the Court the detail of a lateral Transfer Agreement. The agreement was concluded in 2006 to allow Sea Fishery Protection Officers (SFPO’s) and Senior Port Officers (SPO’s) employed in one location to avail of a lateral transfer to any of seven listed geographic locations. It is common case that the 2006 agreement has operated beyond that single event and has been the basis for transfers of officers between geographic locations since. The Trade Union contends that the agreement has operated since 2006 to facilitate officers based in geographic locations to transfer to Head Office and other office locations. The employer has submitted that this agreement has not been the basis for such transfers and that transfers under the agreement were like-for-like transfers of SFPO’s and SPO’s between geographic locations. The Lateral Transfer Agreement provides for transfer to a vacancy at the volition of the worker and where more than one officer seeks a transfer to a vacant post, the transfer takes place on the basis of the relative seniority of the two officers with the most senior officer being afforded the transfer. The Trade Union contends that SFPO’s and SPO’s have all the skills necessary to take up office based positions and that the agreement is appropriate and effective. The employer submits that appointments to Head Office or other office-based locations can only happen on the basis of a consideration of the suitability and skillset of the applicant. The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Lateral Transfer Agreement is considered by the Trade Union to be an important feature of the arrangements applying to SPO’s and SFPO’s. The text of the original agreement however did not provide for the use of the arrangement to facilitate the transfer of Sea Fisheries Officers to vacant positions in the Head office or other offices on the basis of that agreement. There is no consensus between the parties as to whether the Lateral Transfer Agreement has been used at any time since 2006 to facilitate the transfer of SFPO’s and SPO’s to head office or other office-based roles. The Court accepts that the principle of appointment on merit and suitability is a long-established feature of public service employment generally and that this reality is reflected in agreements across the public sector. The Court can find no basis in the terms of the 2006 agreement to recommend concession of the Trade Union side claim. In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties accept that the mechanisms set out in the Lateral Transfer Agreement are not fit for purpose as the means to select persons for appointment to positions in the Head Office or other offices. The Court recommends that this reality be accepted by both parties and that they agree that any such appointments will take place on the basis of competition whether internally within the organisation or by way of public competition. In making this Recommendation the Court notes that SPO’s and SFPO’s will have a full opportunity to participate in any competition for positions located in Head Office or other offices. Recruitment of non-Roster SFPO’s and SPO’s It is common case that the employer intends to recruit non-rostered SFPO’s and SPO’s. These staff are intended to be office based and located in the Head Office or other offices of the employer with no liability to work atypical hours on a roster. The Trade Union contends that the posts should be graded in such a manner as to ensure that rostered staff could reasonably regard the posts as opportunities for career advancement. The employer submits that the posts should be graded as HEO in the case of a non-rostered SFPO and an equivalent grade to Engineer Grade II in the case of non-rostered SPO’s. The Court note that the grade of HEO is almost identical at the maximum point to the current grade of SFPO (excluding a roster payment) albeit the SFPO scale commences at a significantly lower rate of pay than the HEO scale. The Court also notes that the current SPO scale (excluding a roster payment) commences at €58,525 and ends at €71,024 whereas the proposed scale for a non-rostered SPO commences at €64,547 and ends at €78,715. The Court recommends that the parties accept that roster payments cannot be made to staff who do not have liability for atypical hours working and that the pay scales proposed by the employer for the non-rostered posts of SFPO and SPO be accepted as reasonable and that recruitment to the posts should be based on a competitive process. Implementation of change The parties, at the hearing of the Court, submitted that the dispute resolution arrangements in place under the Building Momentum collective agreement as clarified are satisfactory in their shared view as the means to resolve issues which might arise in the course of the implementation of change in the organisation. General IR relationship The Court has considered very carefully the written and oral submissions of the parties. It is clear to the Court that neither party is satisfied with the effectiveness of ongoing engagements and the framework for the conduct of their shared relationship. It is clear that both parties seek to develop the relationship so as to ensure that the needs of both the employer and the membership of the Trade Union are better served by the framework and structure of engagement. The Court notes that the parties have engaged in a wide range of processes in recent years including with the support of external providers of dispute resolution services. The Court recommends that The parties, in recognition of their shared responsibility to give stability to their relationship, should agree to implement and engagement arrangement based on a six weekly engagement beginning upon acceptance of this Recommendation. That six-weekly meeting should, for each meeting occurring in the first six months, be attended by a representative of IBEC and a full-time official of Forsa. During the course of that first six months the parties should set aside an agenda item to allow, outside of any other matter requiring engagement, a joint consideration of the operation of the relationship generally having regard to learning and experiences of engagement since the last meeting. At the end of the six-month period the parties should consider whether the attendance of the full time official and the IBEC representative remains necessary or whether such attendances might be scheduled on an ‘as required’ basis. The parties agree that all matters of dispute which might arise in the workplace should be the subject of local engagement in the first instance including through the formation of working or problem-solving groups locally if necessary. Such local efforts should, if necessary, be followed by engagement between the parties with the support of both IBEC and Forsa full time representation. All disputes arising will, following local engagement as set out above, be dealt with through the dispute resolution framework set out in the Building Momentum Collective agreement. The parties agree to review the effectiveness of their relationship framework after one year with the support of the Advisory Service of the Workplace Relations Commission if necessary. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
